Now you show me some evidence to the contrary. You are claiming that Fox News' "mistakes" are not biased to either the left or the right; that they are random, honest bloopers.

Show me some mistakes that make Dems or unfavored Repubs look good. The ball is in your court.

A few points.....

Your "evidence" that the network is making them look bad is nothing more than a typo.

A typo isn't a smear. A typo isn't pushing a meme. A typo isn't anything other than a typo.

FoxNews is on the 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. How is what a half dozen typos across that timeframe even a pattern? If it were in a statistical sample it would be 99.9999% for versus what you've presented as against.

You even call them bloopers. Bloopers by definition are mistakes. You are taking an error, a mistake, and claiming you've proven the intent behind it.

Your "evidence" that the network is making them look bad is nothing more than a typo.

A typo isn't a smear. A typo isn't pushing a meme. A typo isn't anything other than a typo.

FoxNews is on the 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. How is what a half dozen typos across that timeframe even a pattern? If it were in a statistical sample it would be 99.9999% for versus what you've presented as against.

You even call them bloopers. Bloopers by definition are mistakes. You are taking an error, a mistake, and claiming you've proven the intent behind it.

You've not done that at all.

You've deliberately missed the point. It just makes you look dumb.

They are not random. This is evidenced by the FACT that they are 100% skewed to promote a right wing agenda. If they were not biased, the "bloopers" would be 50/50. They are nowhere near that. I challenged you to show otherwise, and you ignored that challenge, again, pretending not to see that the absence of balance in "mistakes" means an absence of balance, period, and that those "mistakes" are most likely deliberate.

They are not random. This is evidenced by the FACT that they are 100% skewed to promote a right wing agenda. If they were not biased, the "bloopers" would be 50/50. They are nowhere near that.

You are so close to understanding this yet do far. The weird lashing out is sort of Amausing to see though.

You declare they are not random. How do you determine this? You're not seriously saying you've determined this from 4-6 screen captures spanning half a decade are you? You'd need a list of all typos and then see of there is a statistical pattern. That is what would constitute proof in any form of research and you've done nothing like that. Your research is akin to noting the world is flat by looking at the horizon.

Quote:

I challenged you to show otherwise, and you ignored that challenge, again, pretending not to see that the absence of balance in "mistakes" means an absence of balance, period, and that those "mistakes" are most likely deliberate.

I could honestly care less about what you "challenge" in the midst of your ranting. The reality is that typos by themselves do not constitute an agenda. If you can't show a pattern above normal accidental typos then nothing has been proven. Typos are a norm. I can show you pictures of it raining four days in the last half decade. If I want to show an agenda I better show something above and outside of the norm and my data needs to be comprehensive, not anecdotal.

I've already proven you wrong in every possible way because you haven't proven anything right and I'm not the one asserting anything requiring proof here. If I showed you four anecdotes of anything else but this, you'd laugh your ass off at the attempt at proof. I'll go find four signs from OWS and assert whatever I want about the entire movement. It will be just fine with you right?

If what I've shown isn't a pattern, then show one single outlier that breaks the pattern. Go ahead. Your failure to do so is very telling indeed.

The pattern that exists is regular typos and all the regular properly formatted titles which, per you at this point apparently account for all the other 24/7/365 for half a decade minus the probably very generous five minutes worth of typo titles across that half decade.

In terms of time, content and sheer amount of textual information going across the screen, your typos are surely the outlier and no where near anything resembling a pattern.

The reason we even have to discuss this is because you apparently can't find anything that is obvious bias, clearly an agenda, you know like the half dozen examples I've easily put into this thread that you've never addressed.

The pattern that exists is regular typos and all the regular properly formatted titles which, per you at this point apparently account for all the other 24/7/365 for half a decade minus the probably very generous five minutes worth of typo titles across that half decade.

In terms of time, content and sheer amount of textual information going across the screen, your typos are surely the outlier and no where near anything resembling a pattern.

The reason we even have to discuss this is because you apparently can't find anything that is obvious bias, clearly an agenda, you know like the half dozen examples I've easily put into this thread that you've never addressed.

Dude. Seriously. I'm making a completely disprovable assertion here that I cannot disprove. Can you?

First, I'm asserting that every "typo" that Fox News, through incompetence, or otherwise, serves their conservative agenda, which casts doubt on any theory that those "typos" are accidental. This would be easily disproved if someone would show just one typo that mislabels a Democrat caught in a scandal as a Republican, etc. I have looked and couldn't find any. That makes my assertion look fairly accurate.

Now, it's entirely possible that there is a typo out there that could disprove my assertion. Go ahead and show me. I can't find any. The burden of proof is yours, if what you want to do is to disprove my assertion.

If there is, in fact, a "typo" or two that shows bias toward a Democrat or someone Fox opposes, like Ron Paul or Joe Lieberman, I will still assert that the ratio of these "typos" still shows an obvious bias. What say we, one to twenty? Is one to twenty "random" in your mind? Don't you agree that a ratio of one to twenty looks fishy?

Seriously, the more you argue against the fact that this appears to show an obvious bias, the more out of touch with reality you look.

It's not asinine at all. Fox continuously makes "mistakes" that subconsciously push their agenda. They do not make similar 'mistakes' that go against their agenda. To dismiss their very clear record on this is what's asinine.

So a few questionable mistakes in party labeling > intentional, obvious bias towards the Democratic party and President Obama? OK then.

Now you show me some evidence to the contrary. You are claiming that Fox News' "mistakes" are not biased to either the left or the right; that they are random, honest bloopers.

Show me some mistakes that make Dems or unfavored Repubs look good. The ball is in your court.

So they're secret, evil plan is to mislabel party affiliations?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

You've deliberately missed the point. It just makes you look dumb.

They are not random.

Prove that.

Quote:

This is evidenced by the FACT that they are 100% skewed to promote a right wing agenda.

Prove that.

Quote:

If they were not biased, the "bloopers" would be 50/50.

Faulty assumption, and not supported. Purely speculative,in fact.

Quote:

They are nowhere near that. I challenged you to show otherwise, and you ignored that challenge, again, pretending not to see that the absence of balance in "mistakes" means an absence of balance, period, and that those "mistakes" are most likely deliberate.

I just don't see how this is the best you can do. You're focusing on fucking typos!? We could spend all day listing examples of pure, unadulterated bias on MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS. And you're challenging us to play the "find the sketchy typo" game?

Getting back to bias: No major media source is going to be completely neutral. Fox has conservative programming to be sure, just as MSNBC has hard left programming. The difference is that Fox consistently has liberal commentators and analysts. Juan Williams and Kirsten Powers are two examples, and are on the network often. They present opposing views. I'm not claiming Fox is neutral, but compared to the other networks, they are far more balanced. MSNBC is straight-up hard left, as is NBC News. CNN is left. CBS is left. ABC is left. For Christ's sake, ABC has former Clinton Communications Director George Stephanapoulos as host of "This Week," asking about moral values and marital fidelity!

And you're pointing out fucking typos.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Dude. Seriously. I'm making a completely disprovable assertion here that I cannot disprove. Can you?

You've got me a bit confused there with your double negatives. Are you stating your claim isn't falsifiable? If that is the case then you can't declare it to be a fact.

Quote:

First, I'm asserting that every "typo" that Fox News, through incompetence, or otherwise, serves their conservative agenda, which casts doubt on any theory that those "typos" are accidental.

Yes, you are asserting that a typo, which be default, by definition are accidents, are not accidents. Understand that no one has to prove that the typos are accidents. That is there default state. That is their definition. You are asserting they are not typos. You must prove that. The phrase unintentional typos is nonsense. You are claiming they are mislabeling people on purpose. You've never proven that.

Quote:

This would be easily disproved if someone would show just one typo that mislabels a Democrat caught in a scandal as a Republican, etc. I have looked and couldn't find any. That makes my assertion look fairly accurate.

It doesn't at all do that. I've got thousands of posts on here. I'm sure if you went through all of them, you'd find that I have certain typing tics aka I make the same type of mistakes repeatedly since I type pretty fast. I'm sure this would be true of almost everyone. There is probably a pattern to the type of mistakes we all make. Understand that your found instances have to be compared to the total number of instances and also the total number of typos to see if there is a pattern. You've not done that.

Quote:

Now, it's entirely possible that there is a typo out there that could disprove my assertion. Go ahead and show me. I can't find any. The burden of proof is yours, if what you want to do is to disprove my assertion.

I don't need to disprove what you haven't proven. I'd much rather continue to prove what I've asserted. My examples are concrete, not typos and clearly you don't care to address them because there is no way to defend them.

Quote:

If there is, in fact, a "typo" or two that shows bias toward a Democrat or someone Fox opposes, like Ron Paul or Joe Lieberman, I will still assert that the ratio of these "typos" still shows an obvious bias. What say we, one to twenty? Is one to twenty "random" in your mind? Don't you agree that a ratio of one to twenty looks fishy?

I'm not the paranoid guy who thinks any typo looks fishy. I look at the big picture and see 4-6 typos (I know there must be mountains more) in half a decade as a complete random event. I see it as a complete outlier.

Quote:

Seriously, the more you argue against the fact that this appears to show an obvious bias, the more out of touch with reality you look.

Seriously, the more you claim a few typos over half a decade amount to a secret plot that advances an agenda, the more everyone wants to check your meds for side effects. I'd bet that if you had the audio of those newscasts the proper information is given. I'd bet there is no misreporting, just a typo.

If you want to find something compelling, I don't know, why don't you find instances where the media ran a bunch of unproven smears against a Democrat? Why don't you find where they petitioned a judge for sealed court records? Why don't you find the instance where they found, believed and reported on a bunch of made up letters related to a candidate because it so fed the narrative that existed in their mind?

Ignorance is as ignorance does. The fact that 10, 20 , 100 typos all skewed toward one end shows bias is not refuted by ignorance.

It's not supported by repeating that you found three of them and declared they show a pattern even if you repeat it 10,20 or 100 times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Show us that many. So far I've seen two or three over say, 15 years.

I've asked for something comprehensive a half dozen times in this thread. He will just repeat we are all stupid and he is right. It's that liberal logic he has going for him. They rule and run nothing but if they did they'd do it oh so much better than all the idiots actually running the show.

By the way, how are conservatives helped by labeling McCain a Democrat? Or Pat Toomey, a very conservative Senator?

1. Surely you don't have to ask this question. You really do have your eyes closed, don't you? Fox didn't support McCain because he was considered too centrist. Just like Lieberman. Just like they didn't support Ron Paul.

2. Fox didn't want to report that a Democrat won. This has been said about this "Switcheroo" again and again.

Now, show me one typo that breaks the pattern, or admit defeat. Or take a video of yourself flipping a coin and it coming up heads ten times in a row.

1. Surely you don't have to ask this question. You really do have your eyes closed, don't you? Fox didn't support McCain because he was considered too centrist. Just like Lieberman. Just like they didn't support Ron Paul.

Yes the only problem with your "conspiracy theory" is that your one blog shows the date of February 11, 2008. While Huckabee didn't withdraw for a while longer, McCain for all intents and purposes won the nomination on February 5th when he prevailed well ahead of everyone on Super Tuesday. He earned enough delegates to get half of what Mitt Romney for example suspended his campaign on February 7th. Fox News wants to help damaged the Republican front runner, the man to whom almost 500 delegates was given in a single day, by somehow taking all those Republican faithful who are going to the polls during the primary season and somehow confusing them by adding a (D).
You can go here and see what happened on Super Tuesday by clicking on the timeline.

Quote:

2. Fox didn't want to report that a Democrat won. This has been said about this "Switcheroo" again and again.

Now, show me one typo that breaks the pattern, or admit defeat. Or take a video of yourself flipping a coin and it coming up heads ten times in a row.

As for flipping coin and it coming up heads ten times in a row, I have no doubt that if you flipped that coin 24/7/365 for five years, that there would indeed be several sequences where it landed heads ten times in a row. You refuse to look at all the non-typo time. It's your own bias and personal blinders. No one has to show additional typos. The 99.9999999% of the time there are no mistakes or typos is the rule. Using the exception as the rule is bad science, bad logic and just makes the person asserting it look like an idiot.
Now again, back to the thread topic and real instances of journalistic bias.

What do you call it when you demand answers from one party and nothing of the sort from the President? Bias of course.

Quote:

Indeed, the GOP hopefuls have been thoroughly queried on a laundry list of issues ranging from immigration problems to the faltering economy, Iran’s nuclear program to trade deficits with China, the intricacies of climate change to strategies to combat terrorism, exploding government regulations to skyrocketing public debt, plus some uncomfortable questions about their pasts and their personal lives.

Yet, during all that time, the man they hope to defeat next November has rarely been asked by news reporters about many of these issues. Since August, President Obama has held only one formal White House news conference. That came on Oct. 6, nearly three months ago. It lasted 74 minutes, shorter than any single Republican debate, and the president was asked 17 questions, most of them softballs on the economy and his latest legislative proposals to create jobs.

No questions on immigration, no questions on Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan or Israel or North Korea -- global trouble spots the GOP candidates have been queried about repeatedly. Moreover, he was not asked about what spending cuts he would make to reduce the deficit, nothing about Medicare and Social Security reform or his health care law, all familiar questions for the Republicans seeking his job.

Obama’s ability to avoid tough questions, skate above the fray and look presidential while his potential successors appear to be futilely flailing is not by accident. It is by White House design, abetted by a press corps that seems content with being shut out by the president and being spoon-fed the message of the day, rather than clamoring for more chances to ask him questions during this critical time.

abettingpresent participle of a·bet (Verb)
Verbt

Encourage or assist (someone) to do something wrong, in particular, to commit a crime or other offense.
Encourage or assist someone to commit (a crime).

It is indeed criminal that our press corps, with so much going wrong don't care to ask the leadership of the country about any solutions. Iran is firing missles and the President, well he's too busy to take questions because he's golfing or boogie-boarding or... well or something.

1. Surely you don't have to ask this question. You really do have your eyes closed, don't you? Fox didn't support McCain because he was considered too centrist. Just like Lieberman. Just like they didn't support Ron Paul.

So they wanted Obama to win? OK. You're just making crap up now. It's an interesting theory, but that's all it is.

Quote:

2. Fox didn't want to report that a Democrat won. This has been said about this "Switcheroo" again and again.

Another theory.

Quote:

Now, show me one typo that breaks the pattern, or admit defeat. Or take a video of yourself flipping a coin and it coming up heads ten times in a row.

The pattern is meaningless, and your analogy is flawed. You finding ten examples of mislabeling doesn't equate to a coin coming up heads ten times in a row. First, it's over a long period of time...thousands of stories, thousands of graphics. Secondly, the type of inaccuracy matters. They are not all created equal. Labeling McCain a Democrat is not the same as labeling Mark Foley a Democrat.

Finally, the whole claim is just hard to believe. You might make a case that there are conservatives who work at Fox who inject unintentional bias by doing this, but beyond that you're asking people to believe they are deliberately mislabeling for political purposes. It's just...dumb.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Dude. Seriously. I'm making a completely disprovable assertion here that I cannot disprove. Can you?

First, I'm asserting that every "typo" that Fox News, through incompetence, or otherwise, serves their conservative agenda, which casts doubt on any theory that those "typos" are accidental. This would be easily disproved if someone would show just one typo that mislabels a Democrat caught in a scandal as a Republican, etc. I have looked and couldn't find any. That makes my assertion look fairly accurate.

No, it would not. It would merely change the statistical pattern by a minuscule amount. It would not prove that the typos are intentional or unintentional. It would not prove competence or incompetence. It would just be another data point.

Quote:

Now, it's entirely possible that there is a typo out there that could disprove my assertion. Go ahead and show me. I can't find any. The burden of proof is yours, if what you want to do is to disprove my assertion.

No, it's not. Your inability to find any of those typos proves nothing. In fact, it's invalid because you are...wait for it....BIASED.

Quote:

If there is, in fact, a "typo" or two that shows bias toward a Democrat or someone Fox opposes, like Ron Paul or Joe Lieberman, I will still assert that the ratio of these "typos" still shows an obvious bias. What say we, one to twenty? Is one to twenty "random" in your mind? Don't you agree that a ratio of one to twenty looks fishy?

Seriously, the more you argue against the fact that this appears to show an obvious bias, the more out of touch with reality you look.

It might look fishy, but it doesn't prove anything. Fox is on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It's been on since what, 1996? That's 131,400 hours of programming. We'll reduce that by 30% for commercials and stories that don't use labels like we're discussing. Let's just call it 100,000 hours for simplicity's sake. That's 6,000,000 minutes (or 360,000,000 seconds) of programming we're dealing with. Assuming each segment requires 5 seconds to register in the viewers' minds, that's 72,000,000 5 second segments. In fact, let's make it longer...let's assume each segment is 30 seconds. That's 1,200,000 possible stories in which there could be a typo.

Of those 1,200,000 30 second segments, you've pointed out 10 in which there are "biased typos." That's a "conservative bias rate" of .000001 percent. I'm not the best with numbers, so feel free to double check my math.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

You are claiming there have been only 10 typos.
You are assuming every segment is 30 seconds.
You make no mention to the number of charts or graphs.
You make no mention to the number of charts or graphs relating to scandals or hot-button topics.
You still can't produce a single "typo" or lie that benefits a Democrat.
You hand wave, make up some statistics, and sit smugly waiting for yourself to be taken seriously. Don't hold your breath.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

This is multiple sources so it is clear someone out there things this is a good thing to push and that the push back is surprising to them. I mean is it really so strange to believe even if you are pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, hell even if you were pro-bestiality that you can relate to and understand grieving over the loss of a still-born or profoundly prematurely born child that died at 2 hours old after 20 weeks of pregnancy?

What the hell isn't out of bounds for Democrats? They swear everything is racist or sexist or just wrong when it is their candidate but are so dishonest in return. Malia and Sasha, out of bounds. Palin's kids, totally in bounds. Obama's birth certificate, racist. McCain's birth certificate, that's vetting of course. Sealed divorced records of course they should be opened, Obama's birth certificate or school records, never. The pain of a stillbirth of 20 week, half term child, totally up for grabs. Clearly we can't pick a president unless we can laugh and ridicule all the miscarriages, stillbirths or child deaths that have happened in their lives.

This is multiple sources so it is clear someone out there things this is a good thing to push and that the push back is surprising to them. I mean is it really so strange to believe even if you are pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, hell even if you were pro-bestiality that you can relate to and understand grieving over the loss of a still-born or profoundly prematurely born child that died at 2 hours old after 20 weeks of pregnancy?

What the hell isn't out of bounds for Democrats? They swear everything is racist or sexist or just wrong when it is their candidate but are so dishonest in return. Malia and Sasha, out of bounds. Palin's kids, totally in bounds. Obama's birth certificate, racist. McCain's birth certificate, that's vetting of course. Sealed divorced records of course they should be opened, Obama's birth certificate or school records, never. The pain of a stillbirth of 20 week, half term child, totally up for grabs. Clearly we can't pick a president unless we can laugh and ridicule all the miscarriages, stillbirths or child deaths that have happened in their lives.

There is no shame. And whether or not Santorum can win, I hope for his family's sake he doesn't get the nomination. He will be absolutely crucified.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

With the graphic on the right proudly displayed, Bashir continued, "42 million for his campaign, 24 million for the DNC, and another cool mill for the Swing State Victory Fund that targets battleground states."

"The President's closest rival in the money race," said Bashir, "millionaire Mitt Romney raised just 24 million in the fourth quarter. Sorry, Mitt, but the President raised about a tenth of that just last night. Indeed, President Obama hit up Chicago for a little hometown love last night reminding his supporters of what the country faces from his Republican challengers."

As you can see, Bashir thinks Obama raising millions of dollars for his reelection and that of Democrats is just fine. He even chided Romney for not raising as much.

First as you can see, this isn't reporting, it is opinion and cheerleading. Reporting would note who raised what and wouldn't be taking cheap shots. Sorry yourself Bashir.

However that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Quote:

"Isn't the GOP as a whole really making an argument for campaign finance reform because of all that what's happened with Citizens United and the vast amounts of money that's being spent in this GOP primary season?" Bashir asked guest Ana Marie Cox in a later segment.

This was followed by Bashir saying to another guest minutes later, "Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman each have a billionaire indirectly backing them. Hasn't the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling ushered this period of what we might call wealthy puppet masters?"

Speaking of puppet masters, Bashir chose not to inform his viewers about precisely how Obama quickly raised $2 million in Chicago this week. The Chicago Tribune did:

The president preached patience again at a $35,800 per couple dinner at the North Side home of campaign bundler, prominent Democratic donor and media mogul Fred Eychaner, the head of Newsweb Corp. [...]

A later reception scheduled for the Hyde Park home of Stuart Taylor, who heads the investment firm The Taylor Group, cost $7,500 per ticket.

Should people willing to spend $35,800 for dinner with the President or $7,500 to meet him be considered "wealthy puppet masters?"

Apparently not if that President is a Democrat.

Apparently good intentions can cover all manner of reality.

Want to keep your own money and thus you lobby the government not to tax you. That is a special interest. Want the government to give you half a billion in loan guarantees so you can declare bankruptcy? That is an "investment".

BTW, given the nature of BR's threads on religion, this woman, who is head of an actual civility organization should have condemned herself and other leftist leaders should have condemned her language use. She is an actual opinion maker, and in a leadership role. She isn't a high school kid on Twitter. No condemnations that I have read at all. She is obviously a good sport to go along with Oliver basically skewering her nicely to try to get her to come around to her own point, but as with so many here, the good intentions clearly cause her to have a disconnect from her own actions and she grants herself a waiver from her own requirements as do most liberals who would never live under the very tyranny they seek to impose.

Also adding to the journalistic integrity of "ad-hom" reasoning, we have Newsweek.

Well, thank goodness they are remaining objective in their reporting and aren't coming off the sidelines for Obama. Yes, that is their actual cover. I'm sure they'll lose a few more of the five "smart" subscribers they have left. This will probably cause them to reorganize, be sold, commit even more to partisan and advocacy journalism and they'll double the subscription price for their remaining three subscribers in an attempt to remain relevant.

BTW, given the nature of BR's threads on religion, this woman, who is head of an actual civility organization should have condemned herself and other leftist leaders should have condemned her language use. She is an actual opinion maker, and in a leadership role. She isn't a high school kid on Twitter. No condemnations that I have read at all. She is obviously a good sport to go along with Oliver basically skewering her nicely to try to get her to come around to her own point, but as with so many here, the good intentions clearly cause her to have a disconnect from her own actions and she grants herself a waiver from her own requirements as do most liberals who would never live under the very tyranny they seek to impose.

Also adding to the journalistic integrity of "ad-hom" reasoning, we have Newsweek.

Well, thank goodness they are remaining objective in their reporting and aren't coming off the sidelines for Obama. Yes, that is their actual cover. I'm sure they'll lose a few more of the five "smart" subscribers they have left. This will probably cause them to reorganize, be sold, commit even more to partisan and advocacy journalism and they'll double the subscription price for their remaining three subscribers in an attempt to remain relevant.

Sullivan has issued a challenge: Point out where he is wrong in the article.

Sullivan has issued a challenge: Point out where he is wrong in the article.

The article is basically delusional. Sullivan claims that everyone, on all sides of Obama is wrong and stupid because Obama's plans are brilliant but all the non-results are showing up and helping us but we are just to dumb to realize it.